Scan, baby, scan. That's
the mantra among politicians at all levels in the wake of the thwarted
terrorist attack aboard a Detroit-bound passenger jet. According to
conventional wisdom, the would-be "underwear bomber" could have been
stopped by airport security if he'd been put through a full-body
scanner, which would have revealed the cache of explosives attached
to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's groin.

Within days or even hours of the bombing
attempt, everyone was talking about so-called whole-body imaging as the
magic bullet that could stop this type of attack. In announcing hearings by
the Senate Homeland Security Commitee, Joe Lieberman approached the use
of scanners as a foregone conclusion, saying one of the "big, urgent
questions that we are holding this hearing to answer" was "Why isn't
whole-body-scanning technology that can detect explosives in wider
use?" Former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff told the Washington Post,
"You've got to find some way of detecting things in parts of the body
that aren't easy to get at. It's either pat downs or imaging, or
otherwise hoping that bad guys haven't figured it out, and I guess bad
guys have figured it out."

Since the alternative is being groped by
airport screeners, the scanners might sound pretty good. The
Transportation Security Administration has claimed that the images "are friendly enough to post in a preschool," though the pictures themselves tell another story, and numerousorganizations
have opposed them as a gross invasion of privacy. Beyond privacy
issues, however, are questions about whether these machines really
work-and about who stands to benefit most from their use. When it comes
to high-tech screening methods, the TSA has a dismal record of
enriching private corporations with failed technologies, and there are
signs that the latest miracle device may just bring more of the same.

Known by their opponents as "digital strip search" machines, the full-body scanners use one of two technologies-millimeter
wave sensors or backscatter x-rays-to see through clothing, producing
ghostly images of naked passengers. Yet critics say that these, too,
are highly fallible, and are incapable of revealing explosives hidden in body cavities-an
age-old method for smuggling contraband. If that's the case, a
terrorist could hide the entire bomb works within his or her body, and
breeze through the virtual strip search undetected. Yesterday, the London Independent
reported on "authoritative claims that officials at the [UK] Department
for Transport and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and
were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against
terrorist threats to aviation." A British defense-research firm
reportedly found the machines unreliable in detecting "low-density"
materials like plastics, chemicals, and liquids-precisely what the
underwear bomber had stuffed in his briefs.

Yet the rush toward full-body scans already seems unstoppable. They were mandated today as part of the "enhanced" screening for travelers from selected countries, and hundreds of the machines are already on order, at a cost of about $150,000 apiece. Within days of the bombing attempt, Reuters was reporting that the
"greater U.S. government shift toward using the high-tech devices could
create a boom for makers of security imaging products, and it has
already created a speculative spike in share prices in some companies."

Which brings us to the money shot. The body
scanner is sure to get a go-ahead because of the illustrious personages
hawking them. Chief among them is former DHS secretary Michael
Chertoff, who now heads the Chertoff Group, which represents one of the
leading manufacturers of whole-body-imaging machines, Rapiscan Systems.
For days after the attack, Chertoff made the rounds on the media promoting the scanners, calling
the bombing attempt "a very vivid lesson in the value of that
machinery"-all without disclosing his relationship to Rapiscan.
According to the Washington Post:

Chertoff's advocacy for the technology dates back to his time in the
Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the
government's first batch of the scanners-five from California-based
Rapiscan Systems.

Today, 40 body scanners are in use at 19 U.S. airports. The number
is expected to skyrocket at least in part because of the Christmas Day
incident. The Transportation Security Administration this week said it
will order 300 more machines.

In the summer, TSA purchased 150 machines from Rapiscan with $25 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds.

The Washington Examiner
last week ran down an entire list of all the former Washington
politicians and staff members who are now part of what it calls the
"full-body scanner lobby":

One manufacturer, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is American Science & Engineering, Inc. AS&E has retained
the K Street firm Wexler & Walker to lobby for "federal deployment
of security technology by DHS and DOD." Individual lobbyists on this
account include former TSA deputy administration Tom Blank, who also worked under House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Chad Wolf-former assistant administrator for policy at TSA, and a
former aide to Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex., a top Senate appropriator
and the ranking Republican on the transportation committee-is also
lobbying on AS&E's behalf.

Former Sen. Al D'Amato, R-N.Y., represents L3 Systems, about which Bloomberg wrote today:
"L-3 has ‘developed a more sophisticated system that could prevent smuggling of almost anything on the body,' said Howard Rubel, an analyst at Jefferies & Co., who has a ‘hold' rating on the stock."

In forecasting the fate of the full-body scanners, we can turn to recent history, which saw the rapid rise-and decline-of the previous "miracle" screening technology. In the years following 9/11, dozens of explosive trace portals (ETPs) were installed in airports across the country, at a cost of about $160,000 each. These "puffer" machines-so called because they blow air on passengers to dislodge explosive particles-were once celebrated as the "no-touch pat down." But in a Denver test by CBS in 2007, a network employee was sprayed with explosives and then walked through the airport's three puffers without any trouble. The machines also set off false alarms, and they frequently broke down, leading to sky-high maintenance costs.

After spending more than $30 million on the puffer machines-most of them purchased from GE-the TSA announced earlier this year that it was suspending their use. Only about 25 percent of the machines were ever even deployed at US airports. A report last month from the Government Accountability Office found that the TSA had not adequately tested the puffers before buying them.

What will happen if the full-body scanner goes the way of the puffer? Well, there's always the next generation of security equipment: the Body Orifice Security Scanner, or BOSS chair. This contraption, which has an uncomfortable resemblance to an electric chair, is used in prisons, mostly in the UK, for tracing cell phones, shivs, and other dangerous contraband that's been swallowed or inserted into body cavities by inmates. So far, it only detects metal, but you never know.

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content,
and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will
not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements
contained in this article.

Fair Use Notice
This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political
issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe
this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information go
to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
"fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.